So, I don’t get what you are saying Lee. Is the “sleepwalking rapist” not responsible at all or not responsible twice over?
What about a 5 year old who causes someone’s death?
Olovetto,
I don’t know the specifics of the case, but it seems to me that a sleepwalking rapist might not be morally responsible. A stronger case may be made for moral responsibility if the offender was aware of a propensity for such acts and failed to take proper precautions. Assuming the incident was entirely unforeseen, it seems to me that the sleepwalking rapist could no more be expected to prevent the rape than prevent sunrise the next day, i.e. it was out of his power to control. Usually, we reserve the category of moral responsibility for beings which have the cognitive and physical ability to choose between different actions–the more constrained are those cognitive and physical abilities, the smaller the range of circumstances in which an entity can be morally responsible (note: issues of determinism are irrelevent in this context).
Whether or not a 5 year old is morally responsible for a death they caused it dependent on specific circumstances.
I think by “morally responsible” you are (or should be) talking about intentionality or negligience, or considerations of the second, “looking at the criminal” “tooth”.
I think there needs to be a distinction between the ethical-aesthetical and moral-legal, so if you are saying that a person being only causally and not “morally responsible” means they can be completely absolved, I disagree.
Well, it seems to me that an entity found to lack moral responsibility is completely absolved of any moral wrongdoing; ordinary punishment may be inapplicable. However, this does not mean they are absolved from any consequences. For example, a sufficiently delusional schizophrenic may be absolved of moral responsibility for a crime–and thus not subject to ordinary punitive measures–while still being subject to lawful repurcussions. In particular, if the schizophrenic is deemed incapable of changing his behaviour, and so considered a continuing threat to others, he may be detained in some manner–the degree to which we grant an entity rights is also contingent on those mental and physical abilities, and thus their rights correspond to their capacity for moral responsibility.
Why would I sign such a disagreable contract?
If he knew he had issues with sleep walking then one could argue he was negligent(sp?), but that the rape was not malicious. Therefore, imprisonment wouldn’t be a good punishment, but having to make restitution would be a good one (as this would also make his own insurance policies premiums go up as he’s a risk…).
That’s false. Almost anyone does, including me. Just beacuse you have no consideration, don’t project it onto others.
What kind insurance are you talking about?